Search

Background: Palau, an island nation in Micronesia, is a medically underserved area with a shortage of specialty care services. Orthopedic diagnoses in Palau remain among the three most common reasons for costly off-island medical referral. The purpose of this study was to assess Palau's current orthopedic surgery capacity and needs to inform interventions to build capacity to improve care access and quality., Methods: Orthopedic needs and capacity assessment tools developed by global surgical outreach experts were utilized to gather information and prompt discussions with a broad range of Palau's most knowledgeable stakeholders (n = 6). Results were reported descriptively., Results: Finance, community impact, governance, and professional development were the lowest-scored domains from the Capacity Assessment Tool for orthopedic surgery (CAT-os), indicating substantial opportunity to build within these domains. According to administrators (n = 3), governance and finance were the greatest capacity-building priorities, followed by professional development and partnership. Belau National Hospital (BNH) had adequate surgical infrastructure. Skin grafting, soft tissue excision/resection, infection management, and amputation were the most commonly selected procedures by stakeholders reporting orthopedic needs., Conclusions: This study utilizes a framework for orthopedic capacity-building in Palau which may inform partnership between Palau's healthcare system and orthopedic global outreach organizations with the goal of improving the quality, safety, and value of the care delivered. This demonstration of benchmarking, implementation planning, and subsequent re-evaluation lays the foundation for the understanding of capacity-building and may be applied to other medically underserved areas globally to improve access to high-quality orthopedic care., (© 2024 International Society of Surgery/Société Internationale de Chirurgie (ISS/SIC).)

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardized assessment from the patient about their own health status. Although originally developed as research tools, PROMs can be used in clinical care to complement objective functional measures (eg, range of motion) and are increasingly integrated to guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes. In some situations, when PROMs are used during clinical care they can improve patient mortality, outcomes, engagement, well-being, and patient-physician communication. Guidance on how PROMs should be communicated with patients continued to be developed. However, PROM use may have unintended consequences, such as when used implemented without accounting for confounding factors (eg, psychological and social health) or in perpetuating healthcare disparities when used imprecisely (eg, lack of linguistic or cultural validation). In this review, we describe the current state of PROM use in orthopaedic surgery, highlight opportunities and challenges of PROM use in clinical care, and provide a roadmap to support orthopaedic surgery practices in incorporating PROMs into routine care to equitably improve patient health., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardized assessment from the patient about their own health status. Although originally developed as research tools, PROMs can be used in clinical orthopaedic care to complement objective functional measures (eg, range of motion). When PROMs are used during clinical care, they can improve patient outcomes, engagement, well-being, and patient-physician communication. Therefore, PROMs are increasingly integrated into shared decision-making approaches to guide treatment decisions, enhance treatment plans, and predict outcomes. They are also being used in quality measurement and value-based health care arrangements. However, methods to communicate PROMs with patients have not been fully developed, and there continue to be barriers to implementing their collection and communication at scale. In addition, measuring care quality and communicating PROMs with patients may have unintended consequences, such as when used in measurement without accounting for confounding factors (eg, psychological and social health), or in perpetuating health care disparities when used imprecisely (eg, lack of linguistic or cultural validation). It is important to describe the current state of PROM use in orthopaedic surgery, highlight opportunities and challenges of PROM use in clinical care, and provide a roadmap for how to incorporate PROMs to equitably improve patient health and build orthopaedic surgery practices.

Background: A growing number of nongovernmental organizations from high-income countries aim to provide surgical outreach for patients in low- and middle-income countries in a manner that builds capacity. There remains, however, a paucity of measurable steps to benchmark and evaluate capacity-building efforts. Based on a framework for capacity building, the present study aimed to develop a Capacity Assessment Tool for orthopaedic surgery (CAT-os) that could be utilized to evaluate and promote capacity building., Methods: To develop the CAT-os tool, we utilized methodological triangulation-an approach that incorporates multiple different types of data. We utilized (1) the results of a systematic review of capacity-building best practices in surgical outreach, (2) the HEALTHQUAL National Organizational Assessment Tool, and (3) 20 semistructured interviews to develop a draft of the CAT-os. We subsequently iteratively used a modified nominal group technique with a consortium of 8 globally experienced surgeons to build consensus, which was followed by validation through member-checking., Results: The CAT-os was developed and validated as a formal instrument with actionable steps in each of 7 domains of capacity building. Each domain includes items that are scaled for scoring. For example, in the domain of partnership, items range from no formalized plans for sustainable, bidirectional relationships (no capacity) to local surgeons and other health-care workers independently participating in annual meetings of surgical professional societies and independently creating partnership with third party organizations (optimal capacity)., Conclusions: The CAT-os details steps to assess capacity of a local facility, guide capacity-improvement efforts during surgical outreach, and measure the impact of capacity-building efforts. Capacity building is a frequently cited and commendable approach to surgical outreach, and this tool provides objective measurement to aid in improving the capacity in low and middle-income countries through surgical outreach., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H572 )., (Copyright © 2023 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from high-income countries provide surgical outreach for patients in low and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, these efforts lack a coordinated measurement of their ability to build capacity. While the World Health Organization and others recommend outreach trips that aim to build the capacity of the local health-care system, no guidance exists on how to accomplish this. The objective of this paper is to establish a framework and a blueprint to guide the operations of NGOs that provide outreach to build orthopaedic surgical capacity in LMICs., Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews with 16 orthopaedic surgeons and administrators located in 7 countries (6 LMICs) on the necessary domains for capacity-building; the analysis was guided by a literature review of capacity-building frameworks. We subsequently conducted a modified nominal group technique with a consortium of 10 U.S.-based surgeons with expertise in global surgical outreach, which was member-checked with 8 new stakeholders from 4 LMICs., Results: A framework with 7 domains for capacity-building in global surgical outreach was identified. The domains included professional development, finance, partnerships, governance, community impact, culture, and coordination. These domains were tiered in a hierarchical system to stratify the level of capacity for each domain. A blueprint was developed to guide the operations of an organization seeking to build capacity., Conclusions: The developed framework identified 7 domains to address when building capacity during global orthopaedic surgical outreach. The framework and its tiered system can be used to assess capacity and guide capacity-building efforts in LMICs. The developed blueprint can inform the operations of NGOs toward activities that focus on building capacity in order to ensure a measured and sustained impact., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H185 )., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Patient satisfaction is increasingly used to assess the quality of care and determine physician reimbursement. Patient characteristics influence patient satisfaction, but the effect of physician practice parameters on satisfaction has not been studied in detail. Outpatient satisfaction scores from 11,059 patients who rated 24 orthopedic surgeons from a single institution were studied. Practice-related parameters were collected in a provider-reported survey. Univariate logistic regressions were used to test the associations between each provider characteristic and the likelihood of receiving a 5-star rating on a selection of 16 Press Ganey patient satisfaction questions. The presence of a physician assistant in the clinic positively affected the 5-star rating for all but 1 of the patient satisfaction questions examined, including overall satisfaction (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.85; P =.031); the likelihood of being recommended to others (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.14; P =.004); and friendliness/courtesy (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17-2.13; P =.003). However, having a fellow or nurse practitioner in the clinic, treating children, productivity (measured as total relative value units), taking trauma call, and provider distance from home were not associated with higher scores for any of the Press Ganey patient satisfaction questions. Having a physician assistant in the clinic is an actionable, practice-specific characteristic that positively affects patient satisfaction on many levels and may ultimately improve the perception of care. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(5):e252-e256.].

Background: Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) and the associated complications impact morbidity and mortality and result in substantial burden to the health-care system. These complications are typically reported during the 90-day surveillance period, with implications for reimbursement and quality measurement; however, the long-term effects of SSI are not routinely assessed. We evaluated the long-term effects of SSI on health-care utilization and cost following orthopaedic surgery in an observational cohort study., Methods: Patients in the Veterans Affairs health-care system who underwent an orthopaedic surgical procedure were included. The exposure of interest was an SSI within 90 days after the index procedure. The primary outcome was health-care utilization in the 2 years after discharge. Data for inpatient admission, inpatient days, outpatient visits, emergency room visits, total costs, and subsequent surgeries were also obtained. After adjusting for factors affecting SSI, we examined differences in each health-care utilization outcome by postoperative SSI occurrence and across time with use of differences-in-differences analysis. Cost differences were modeled with use of a gamma distribution with a log link., Results: A total of 96,983 patients were included, of whom 4,056 (4.2%) had an SSI within 90 days of surgery. After adjusting for factors known to impact SSI and preoperative health-care utilization, SSI was associated with a greater risk of outpatient visits (relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 1.32), emergency room visits (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.21), and inpatient admission (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.38) at 2 years postoperatively. The average cost among patients with an SSI was $148,824 ± $268,358 compared with $42,125 ± $124,914 among those without an SSI (p < 0.001). In the adjusted analysis, costs for patients with an SSI were 64% greater at 2 years compared with those without an SSI (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.57 to 1.70). Overall, of all subsequent surgeries conducted within the 2-year postoperative period, 37% occurred within the first 90 days., Conclusions: The reported effects of a postoperative SSI on health-care utilization and cost are sustained at 2 years post-surgery-a long-term impact that is not recognized in quality-measurement models. Efforts, including preoperative care pathways and optimization, and policies, including reimbursement models and risk-adjustment, should be made to reduce SSI and to account for these long-term effects., Level of Evidence: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H25)., (Copyright © 2022 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the United States Copyright Act, a ‘work of the United States Government’ for which copyright protection under that Act is not available. As such, copyright protection does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government prepared as part of their employment.)

The influence of health literacy on involvement in decision-making in orthopedic surgery has not been analyzed and could inform processes to engage patients. The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between health literacy and the patient's preferred involvement in decision-making. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of patients presenting to a multispecialty orthopedic clinic. Patients completed the Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LiMP) survey to evaluate their health literacy and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) survey to evaluate their preferred level of involvement in decision-making. Statistical analysis was performed with Pearson's correlation and multivariable logistic regression. Thirty-seven percent of patients had limited health literacy (LiMP score <6). Forty-eight percent of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physician equally (CPS score=3), whereas 38% preferred to have a more active role in decision-making (CPS score≤2). There was no statistically significant correlation between health literacy and patient preference for involvement in decision-making ( r =0.130; P =.150). Among patients with orthopedic conditions, there is no significant relationship between health literacy and preferred involvement in decision-making. Results from studies in other specialties that suggest that limited health literacy is associated with a preference for less involvement in decision-making are not generalizable to orthopedic surgery. Efforts to engage patients to be informed and participatory in decision-making through the use of decision aids and preference elicitation tools should be directed toward variation in preference for involvement in decision-making, but not toward patient health literacy. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(4):227-232.].

Background: Quality measures provide a way to assess health care delivery and to identify areas for improvement that can inform patient care delivery. When operationalized by a hospital or a payer, quality measures can also be tied to physician or hospital reimbursement. Prior work on quality measures in orthopaedic surgery have identified substantial gaps in measurement portfolios and have highlighted areas for future measure development. This study aims to identify the portfolio of quality measures in pediatric orthopaedic surgery., Methods: We used methodology of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and reviewed PubMed/ MEDLINE and EMBASE, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS), National Quality Forum (NQF), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), for quality measures and candidate quality measures. Quality measure and candidate quality measures were categorized as structure, process, or outcome. Measures were also classified into 1 of the 6 National Quality Strategy priorities (safety, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable)., Results: A review of PubMed/EMBASE returned 1640 potential quality measures and articles. A review of AAOS, NQF, and AHRQ databases found 80 potential quality measures. After screening we found a total of 18 quality measures and candidate quality measures specifically for pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Quality measures addressed conditions such as supracondylar humerus fractures, developmental dysplasia of the hip, and osteochondritis dissecans. There were 10 process measures, 8 outcome measure, and 0 structure measures. When we categorized by National Quality Strategy priorities and found 50% (9/18) were effective clinical care, 44% (8/18) were person and care-giver centered experience and outcomes, 6% (1/18) were efficient use of resources., Conclusions: There are few quality measures and candidate quality measures to assess pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Of the quality measure available, process measures are relatively over-represented. Pediatric orthopaedic surgeons can lead the development of outcome (eg, patient-reported outcomes after surgery) and structure measures (eg, subspecialty training certification) to assess quality of care in pediatric orthopaedic surgery., Level of Evidence: Level II-systematic review., Competing Interests: R.N.K. is a consultant for Acumed and Triple Ring and is currently receiving a grant (#K23AR073307-01) from the National Institutes of Health and a grant (#19-064) from the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and has leadership roles in American Society for Surgery of the Hand, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and the National Quality Forum. K.G.S. has a leadership role in the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America Safe Surgery Program Committee. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patient satisfaction scores are a popular metric used to evaluate orthopedic care. There is little consistency with how satisfaction is described in the orthopedic literature. Online physician reviews are a growing trend that directly and indirectly affect a surgeon's reputation. There is little correlation of higher satisfaction with improved surgical outcomes, so rating surgical care may be misguided and possibly dangerous. Patient satisfaction is an important part of the patient-centered care model, so rating systems should directly reflect quality. More research is needed to determine the relationship between patient satisfaction and the delivery of quality care. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(3):e127-e133.].

Background: There is increasing evidence supporting the association between frailty and adverse outcomes after surgery. There is, however, no consensus on how frailty should be assessed and used to inform treatment. In this review, we aimed to synthesize the current literature on the use of frailty as a predictor of adverse outcomes following orthopaedic surgery by (1) identifying the frailty instruments used and (2) evaluating the strength of the association between frailty and adverse outcomes after orthopaedic surgery., Methods: A systematic review was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify articles that reported on outcomes after orthopaedic surgery within frail populations. Only studies that defined frail patients using a frailty instrument were included. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Study demographic information, frailty instrument information (e.g., number of items, domains included), and clinical outcome measures (including mortality, readmissions, and length of stay) were collected and reported., Results: The initial search yielded 630 articles. Of these, 177 articles underwent full-text review; 82 articles were ultimately included and analyzed. The modified frailty index (mFI) was the most commonly used frailty instrument (38% of the studies used the mFI-11 [11-item mFI], and 24% of the studies used the mFI-5 [5-item mFI]), although a large variety of instruments were used (24 different instruments identified). Total joint arthroplasty (22%), hip fracture management (17%), and adult spinal deformity management (15%) were the most frequently studied procedures. Complications (71%) and mortality (51%) were the most frequently reported outcomes; 17% of studies reported on a functional outcome., Conclusions: There is no consensus on the best approach to defining frailty among orthopaedic surgery patients, although instruments based on the accumulation-of-deficits model (such as the mFI) were the most common. Frailty was highly associated with adverse outcomes, but the majority of the studies were retrospective and did not identify frailty prospectively in a prediction model. Although many outcomes were described (complications and mortality being the most common), there was a considerable amount of heterogeneity in measurement strategy and subsequent strength of association. Future investigations evaluating the association between frailty and orthopaedic surgical outcomes should focus on prospective study designs, long-term outcomes, and assessments of patient-reported outcomes and/or functional recovery scores., Clinical Relevance: Preoperatively identifying high-risk orthopaedic surgery patients through frailty instruments has the potential to improve patient outcomes. Frailty screenings can create opportunities for targeted intervention efforts and guide patient-provider decision-making., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSREV/A775)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Introduction: Up to 30% of the global burden of disease is secondary to surgical conditions, most of which falls on those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Ensuring that the quality of care delivered during outreach trips to address these conditions is foundational. Limited work has been done to develop and implement tools to assess and improve the quality of care for these trips. The purpose of this study was to identify candidate quality measures that address orthopaedic surgery outreach trips in LMICs., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and other databases to identify candidate quality measures relevant to orthopaedic surgery outreach to LMICs. Quality measures were then categorized by system management, sustainability, or both system management and sustainability according to the framework and structures, processes, and outcomes of Bido et al according to the Donabedian domains., Results: Our initial search yielded 3,891 articles, 22 of which met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-nine candidate quality measures were identified. Regarding the framework of Bido et al, 55 of 79 (70%) were related to system management, 8 (10%) were related to sustainability, and 16 (20%) were related to both system management and sustainability. According to Donabedian domains, 43 of 79 (54%) were structure measures, 25 (32%) were process measures, and 11 (14%) were outcome measures., Discussion: Quality measures addressing orthopaedic surgery outreach trips are lacking in quantity and breadth, limiting the ability to assess and improve the safety and quality of care provided. The candidate quality measures identified disproportionately focus on systems management and structures, with few related to sustainability and few addressing outcomes. Patients receiving care on outreach trips would benefit from the implementation of the measures identified in this review and from the development of quality measures that capture all domains of care and emphasize outcomes., Level of Evidence: Level III., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Introduction: Patient satisfaction has increasingly been used to assess physician performance and quality of care. Although there is evidence that patient satisfaction is associated with patient-reported health outcomes and communication-related measures, there is debate over the use of patient satisfaction in reimbursement policy. Patient characteristics that influence satisfaction have been studied, but the effects of personal and demographic characteristics of physicians on patient satisfaction have yet to be explored., Methods: Outpatient satisfaction scores from 11,059 patients who rated 25 orthopaedic surgeons from a single institution were studied. In this study, we sought to explore the relationship between nonmodifiable physician characteristics, such as sex and race, and patient satisfaction with outpatient orthopaedic surgery care, as expressed in the Press Ganey Satisfaction Scores. Univariate logistic regression models were used to test the associations between each provider characteristic and patient satisfaction on the Press Ganey patient satisfaction questionnaire., Results: Three nonmodifiable physician personal and demographic characteristics were markedly associated with lower patient satisfaction scores across overall satisfaction, communication, and empathy domains: (1) female gender, (2) Asian ethnicity, and (3) being unmarried. Asian ethnicity reduced the odds of receiving a 5-star rating for likelihood to recommend the provider by nearly 40%, but none of these nonmodifiable physician personal and demographic characteristics affected the likelihood to recommend the practice., Discussion: Sex, ethnicity, and marital status are nonmodifiable provider characteristics, each associated with markedly lower odds of receiving a 5-star rating on Press Ganey patient satisfaction survey. These data reveal inherent patient biases that negatively affect physician-patient interactions and may exacerbate the lack of diversity in orthopaedic surgery. More research is necessary before using patient satisfaction ratings to evaluate surgeons or as quality measures that affect reimbursement policies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Introduction . Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods . We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results . Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion . A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.

Introduction: To assess bounds of shared decision making in orthopaedic surgery, we conducted an exploratory study to examine the extent to which patients want to be involved in decision making in the management of a musculoskeletal condition., Methods: One hundred fifteen patients at an orthopaedic surgery clinic were asked to rate preferred level of involvement in 25 common theoretical clinical decisions (passive [0], semipassive [1 to 4], equally shared involvement between patient and surgeon [5], semiactive [6 to 9], active [10])., Results: Patients preferred semipassive roles in 92% of decisions assessed. Patients wanted to be most involved in scheduling surgical treatments (4.75 ± 2.65) and least involved in determining incision sizes (1.13 ± 1.98). No difference exists in desired decision-making responsibility between patients who had undergone orthopaedic surgery previously and those who had not. Younger and educated patients preferred more decision-making responsibility. Those with Medicare desired more passive roles., Discussion: Despite the importance of shared decision making on delivering patient-centered care, our results suggest that patients do not prefer to share all decisions.

Purpose: Rising costs at the patient level have been recognized and shown to directly influence patient decisions. By understanding patient interests in discussing cost, hand surgeons may better prepare themselves and their practices to communicate costs with patients., Methods: We surveyed 128 patients at an upper extremity surgery clinic at their 2-week postoperative visit. Survey domains included basic patient demographics and an assessment of patient financial distress, along with questions that rated patient interest with patient-physician financial conversations. These factors included patients' desire for a conversation regarding cost, whether or not patients have discussed cost with their surgeon, barriers to these discussions, and overall views concerning cost containment in hand care., Results: Seven percent of patients discussed the costs of their surgical care with their physician. Eleven percent of patients reported that a doctor should not discuss the costs of their surgical care. Forty-eight percent of patients reported that a doctor should initiate a conversation regarding costs of care when a new treatment is being considered. Fifty-nine percent of patients agreed that physicians should consider the amount of money a patient will have to pay when choosing a new treatment., Conclusions: Patients can experience financial hardship as a result of their surgery and some patients are interested in discussing costs with their doctor. Patients indicated that doctors should be concerned with lowering the costs of surgery and should initiate a conversation regarding costs of care when a new treatment is being considered., Clinical Relevance: Patients are interested in a conversation regarding their cost of hand surgery care. Making cost data more transparent and available to physicians and patients may facilitate communication regarding cost of care., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Increased out-of-pocket costs have led to patients bearing more of the financial burden for their care. Previous work has shown that financial burden and distress can affect outcomes, symptoms, satisfaction, and adherence to treatment. We asked the following questions: (1) Does patients' financial distress correlate with disability in patients with nonacute orthopaedic conditions? (2) Do patient demographic factors affect this correlation?, Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of new patients presenting to a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic with a nonacute orthopaedic complication. Patients completed a demographics questionnaire, the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index. Statistical analysis was done using Pearson's correlation., Results: The mean score for financial distress was 4.10 (SD, 2.09; scale 1 [low distress] to 10 [high distress]; range, 1.13 to 10.0), and the mean disability score was 0.54 (SD, 0.65; scale 0 to 3; range, 0 to 2.75). A moderate positive correlation exists between financial distress and disability (r = 0.43; P < 0.01). Financial distress and disability were highest for poor, uneducated, Medicare patients., Conclusions: A moderate correlation exists between financial distress and disability in patients with nonacute orthopaedic conditions, particularly in patients with low socioeconomic status. Orthopaedic surgeons may benefit from identifying patients in financial distress and discussing the cost of treatment because of its association with disability and potentially inferior outcomes. Further investigation is needed to test whether decreasing financial distress decreases disability., Level of Evidence: Level III prospective cohort.

Background: Quality measures may be operationalized in payment models or quality reporting programs to assess foot and ankle surgeons, but if existing measures allow accurate representation of a foot and ankle surgeon's practice is unclear., Methods: National quality measures databases, clinical guidelines, and MEDLINE/PubMed were systematically reviewed for quality measures relevant to foot and ankle care. Measures meeting internal criteria were categorized by clinical diagnosis, National Quality Strategy priority, and Donabedian domain., Results: Of 12 quality measures and 16 candidate measures, National Quality Strategy priorities most commonly addressed "Effective Clinical Care" (n = 19) and "Communication and Coordination of Care" (n = 6). Donabedian classifications addressed were process (n = 25) and outcome (n = 3). Diabetic foot care was most commonly addressed (n = 18)., Conclusions: Available foot and ankle quality measures are limited in number and scope, which may hinder appropriate assessment of care, analysis of trends, and quality improvement. Additional measures are needed to support the transition to a value-based system., Level of Evidence: Level I.

Purpose: Quality measures are used to evaluate health care delivery. They are traditionally developed from the physician and health system viewpoint. This approach can lead to quality measures that promote care that may be misaligned with patient values and preferences. We completed an exploratory, qualitative study to identify how patients with hand problems define high-quality care. Our purpose was to develop a better understanding of the surgery and recovery experience of hand surgery patients, specifically focusing on knowledge gaps, experience, and the surgical process., Methods: A steering committee (n = 10) of patients who had previously undergone hand surgery reviewed and revised an open-ended survey. Ninety-nine patients who had undergone hand surgery at 2 tertiary care institutions completed the open-ended, structured questionnaire during their 6- to 8-week postoperative clinic visit. Two reviewers completed a thematic analysis to generate subcodes and codes to identify themes in high-quality care from the patient's perspective., Results: We identified 4 themes of high-quality care: (1) Being prepared and informed for the process of surgery, (2) Regaining hand function without pain or complication, (3) Patients and caregivers negotiating the physical and psychological challenges of recovery, and (4) Financial and logistical burdens of undergoing hand surgery., Conclusions: Multiple areas that patients identify as representing high-quality care are not reflected in current quality measures for hand surgery. The patient-derived themes of high-quality care can inform future patient-centered quality measure development., Clinical Relevance: Efforts to improve health care delivery may have the greatest impact by addressing areas of care that are most valued by patients. Such areas include patient education, system navigation, the recovery process, and cost., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Forecasting is a construct in which experiences and beliefs inform a projection of future outcomes. Current efforts to predict postoperative patient-reported outcome measures such as risk-stratifying models, focus on studying patient, surgeon, or facility variables without considering the mindset of the patient. There is no evidence assessing the association of a patient's forecasted postoperative disability with realized postoperative disability. Patient-forecasted disability could potentially be used as a tool to predict postoperative disability., Questions/purposes: (1) Do patient-forecasted disability and pain correlate with patient-realized disability and pain after hand surgery? (2) What other factors are associated with patient ability to forecast disability and pain?, Methods: We completed a prospective, longitudinal study to assess the association between forecasted and realized postoperative pain and disability as a predictive tool. One hundred eighteen patients of one hand/upper extremity surgeon were recruited from November 2016 to February 2018. Inclusion criteria for the study were patients undergoing hand or upper extremity surgery, older than 18 years of age, and English fluency and literacy. We enrolled 118 patients; 32 patients (27%) dropped out as a result of incomplete postoperative questionnaires. The total number of patients eligible was not tracked. Eighty-six patients completed the preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. Exclusion criteria included patients unable to give informed consent, children, patients with dementia, and nonEnglish speakers. Before surgery, patients completed a questionnaire that asked them to forecast their upper extremity disability (DASH [the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand] [QuickDASH]) and pain VAS (pain from 0 to 10) for 2 weeks after their procedure. The questionnaire also queried the following psychologic factors as explanatory variables, in addition to other demographic and socioeconomic variables: the General Self Efficacy Scale, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale. At the 2-week followup appointment, patients completed the QuickDASH and pain VAS to assess their realized disability and pain scores. Bivariate analysis was used to test the association of forecasted and realized disability and pain reporting Pearson correlation coefficients. Unpaired t-tests were performed to test the association of demographic variables (for example, men vs women) and the association of forecasted and realized disability and pain levels. One-way analysis of variance was used for variables with multiple groups (for example, annual salary and ethnicity). All p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant., Results: Forecasted postoperative disability was moderately correlated with realized postoperative disability (r = 0.59; p < 0.001). Forecasted pain was weakly correlated with realized postoperative pain (r = 0.28; p = 0.011). A total of 47% of patients (n = 40) were able to predict their disability score within the MCID of their realized disability score. Symptoms of depression also correlated with increased realized postoperative disability (r = 0.37; p < 0.001) and increased realized postoperative pain (r = 0.42; p < 0.001). Catastrophic thinking was correlated with increased realized postoperative pain (r = 0.31; p = 0.004). Patients with symptoms of depression realized greater pain postoperatively than what they forecasted preoperatively (r = -0.24; p = 0.028), but there was no association between symptoms of depression and patients' ability to forecast disability (r = 0.2; p = 0.058). Patient age was associated with a patient's ability to forecast disability (r = .27; p = 0.011). Catastrophic thinking, self-efficacy, and number of prior surgical procedures were not associated with a patient's ability to forecast their postoperative disability or pain., Conclusions: Patients undergoing hand surgery can moderately forecast their postoperative disability. Surgeons can use forecasted disability to identify patients who may experience greater disability compared with benchmarks, for example, forecast and experience high QuickDASH scores after surgery, and inform preoperative discussions and interventions focused on expectation management, resilience, and mindset., Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study.

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis is a common but controversial practice for clean soft tissue procedures of the hand, such as carpal tunnel release or trigger finger release. Previous studies report no substantial reduction in the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after antibiotic prophylaxis, yet are limited in power by low sample sizes and low overall rates of postoperative infection., Questions/purposes: Is there evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the risk of SSI after soft tissue hand surgery when using propensity score matching to control for potential confounding variables such as demographics, procedure type, medication use, existing comorbidities, and postoperative events?, Methods: This retrospective analysis used the Truven Health MarketScan databases, large, multistate commercial insurance claims databases corresponding to inpatient and outpatient services and outpatient drug claims made between January 2007 and December 2014. The database includes records for patients enrolled in health insurance plans from self-insured employers and other private payers. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, ganglion and retinacular cyst excision, de Quervain's release, or soft tissue mass excision, and to assign patients to one of two cohorts based on whether they had received preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. We identified 943,741 patients, of whom 426,755 (45%) were excluded after meeting one or more exclusion criteria: 357,500 (38%) did not have 12 months of consecutive insurance enrollment before surgery or 1 month of enrollment after surgery; 60,693 (6%) had concomitant bony, implant, or incision and drainage or débridement procedures; and 94,141 (10%) did not have complete data. In all, our initial cohort consisted of 516,986 patients, among whom 58,201 (11%) received antibiotic prophylaxis. Propensity scores were calculated and used to create cohorts matched on potential risk factors for SSI, including age, procedure type, recent use of steroids and immunosuppressive agents, diabetes, HIV/AIDs, tobacco use, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol abuse, malnutrition, history of prior SSI, and local procedure volume. Multivariable logistic regression before and after propensity score matching was used to test whether antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a decrease in the risk of SSI within 30 days after surgery., Results: After controlling for patient demographics, hand procedure type, medication use, existing comorbidities (eg, diabetes, HIV/AIDs, tobacco use, obesity), and postoperative events through propensity score matching, we found that the risk of postoperative SSI was no different between patients who had received antibiotic prophylaxis and those who had not (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93-1.13; p = 0.585)., Conclusions: Antibiotic prophylaxis for common soft tissue procedures of the hand is not associated with reduction in postoperative infection risk. While our analysis cannot account for factors that are not captured in the billing process, this study nevertheless provides strong evidence against unnecessary use of antibiotics before these procedures, especially given the difficulty of conducting a randomized prospective study with a sample size large enough to detect the effect of prophylaxis on the low baseline risk of infection., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Value-based healthcare models rely on quality measures to evaluate the efficacy of healthcare delivery and to identify areas for improvement. Quality measure research in other areas of health care has generally shown that there is a limited number of available quality measures and that those that exist disproportionately focus on processes as opposed to outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the current state of quality measures and candidate quality measures in spine surgery., Questions/purposes: (1) How many quality measures and candidate quality measures are currently available? (2) According to Donabedian domains and National Quality Strategy (NQS) priorities, what aspects or domains of care do the present quality measures and candidate quality measures represent?, Methods: We systematically reviewed the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures relevant to spine surgery. A systematic search for candidate quality measures was also performed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase as well as publications from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and the North American Spine Society. Clinical practice guidelines were included as candidate quality measures if their development was in accordance with Institute of Medicine criteria for the development of clinical practice guidelines, they were based on consistent clinical evidence including at least one Level I study, and they carried the strongest possible recommendation by the developing body. Quality measures and candidate quality measures were then pooled for analysis and categorized by clinical focus, NQS priority, and Donabedian domain. Our initial search yielded a total of 3940 articles, clinical practice guidelines, and quality measures, 74 of which met criteria for inclusion in this study., Results: Of the 74 measures studied, 29 (39%) were quality measures and 45 (61%) were candidate quality measures. Fifty of 74 (68%) were specific to the care of the spine, and 24 of 74 (32%) were related to the general care of spine patients. The majority of the spine-specific measures were process measures (45 [90%]) and focused on the NQS priority of "Effective Clinical Care" (44 [88%]). The majority of the general care measures were also process measures (14 [58%]), the highest portion of which focused on the NQS priority of "Patient Safety" (10 [42%])., Conclusions: Given the large number of pathologies treated by spine surgeons, the limited number of available quality measures and candidate quality measures in spine surgery is inadequate to support the transition to a value-based care model. Additionally, current measures disproportionately focus on certain aspects or domains of care, which may hinder the ability to appropriately judge an episode of care, extract usable data, and improve quality. Physicians can steward the creation of meaningful quality measures by participating in clinical practice guideline development, assisting with the creation and submission of formal quality measures, and conducting the high-quality research on which effective guidelines and quality measures depend.

As the government and payers place increasing emphasis on measuring and reporting quality and meeting-specific benchmarks, physicians and health care systems will continue to adapt to meet regulatory requirements. Hand surgeons' involvement in quality measure development will help ensure that our services are appropriately assessed. Moreover, by embracing a culture of quality assessment and improvement, we will improve patient care while demonstrating the importance of our services in a health care system that is transitioning from a fee-for-service model to a fee-for-value model. Understanding quality and the tools for its measurement, and the application of quality assessment and improvement methods can help hand surgeons continue to deliver high-quality care that aligns with national priorities., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)